Remember three weeks ago when the secretary of the Immigration Department, Andrew Metcalfe, quietly advocated a bit of a sensible look at a whole bunch of areas in Australian immigration policy?

Like whether detention was a deterrent, and how best to balance our humanitarian obligations with our border protection interests, and so on?

Mr Metcalfe was stamped out like a small grass fire in about five minutes; Scott Morrison issued a press release demanding that the Government clarify this dangerous new note of ambivalence in the operators of Fortress Australia, and Chris Bowen's office briefed that Mr Metcalfe was definitely not questioning mandatory detention in an actual questiony way. He was just restating the questions facing the parliamentary inquiry he was addressing at the time. Not seriously suggesting they should be answered, or anything.

Mr Metcalfe is looking a tiny bit prescient now, after Hurricane High Court's brisk rearrangement of the policy furniture.

But what are the odds we'll get a reasoned examination of this policy area? What's happening at the moment, on asylum seeker policy, is not actually a political debate. Both major parties want to take a "tough" line on border protection; they're just trying to trip each other up on detail. (What is truly impressive is that they can actually hold a simultaneous, equally aggressive argument on fiscal prudence without anyone questioning whether $1 billion a year isn't rather a lot to be spending on shunting a few thousand people round the region in one way or another.)

The Government's response to the High Court's decision – a declaration that all offshore processing is now buggered – has a touch of the bat/ball/going home about it, and it is difficult to escape the suspicion that Mr Bowen and colleagues are happy to squish Nauru on political, rather than policy grounds.

And Mr Abbott's generous offer of assistance is about as benign as a squirty lapel flower. "I'm trying to help the Government," he maintained this morning. Which is quite sincere, so long as you interpret "help" as "help the Government into a position in which I can better administer this atomic wedgie".

Mr Abbott argues that his preferred methods are what stopped the boats dead in 2001. Chris Bowen argues that his Malaysia Solution was already working, though concedes that it would have worked even better if it had actually happened.

Later today, the Cabinet will go back to the drawing board. Or maybe, seeing as the High Court has reduced it to pre-drawing board technology, it will start by building a drawing board. Do not expect a fast decision here.

In the meantime, perhaps we can bring some independent perspective to the debate. As so often is the case, it's available in spades from the Parliamentary Library, which has just updated its analysis of boat arrivals in Australia over the last 30 years or so.

I have borrowed a chart from the paper, which shows the peaks of boat arrivals since 1976.

Australia has always taken large numbers of immigrants, but boat arrivals only started in April 1976, when one boat carrying five Vietnamese men arrived in Darwin. The subsequent "first wave" of boatpeople lasted about five years and its members were resettled, though not without trouble - the 1977 election campaign featured a protest by the Darwin branch of the Waterside Workers Federation, demanding an end to "special treatment" of refugees. A total of 2,059 people arrived in this period.

The next "wave" of boatpeople (from Vietnam, Cambodia and China) started in November 1989, and the Labor government introduced the policy of mandatory detention in 1992. There was a dip in arrivals the following year, as you can see, but the second "wave" still peaked at 953 in 1994.

And the third, this time mainly of Middle Eastern asylum seekers, really started to surge in 1999. The Howard government introduced Temporary Protection Visas in October 1999. As you can see from the graph, the TPV arrangement did not reduce boat arrivals on its own – they still grew fairly steeply for the next two years to a peak of 5,516 in 2001, then dropped away to just one boat, bearing one person, in 2002.

What happened in 2001?

Lots of things. The Tampa crisis, then the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, and then the Australian federal election, in quick succession. But on September 26, 2001, the parliament passed a package of six bills, which excised chunks of Australia and external territories from our migration zone, removed asylum seekers' access to the Australian legal system, and legalised the removal and detention of asylum seekers to a third country for processing.

The common assumption is that these measures were forced through by the Howard government, but the truth is that they were done with the support of the Beazley Labor opposition.

One other thing that happened in 2001 - in October, just weeks after all these laws were passed - was that 353 people drowned when their boat, now known as SIEV-X, sank on its way from Indonesia to Australia. Of the dead, 146 were children.

As you can see from the chart, boat arrivals were low until the election of the Rudd government, which abolished TPVs straight away and then closed Nauru in 2008. The Rudd government maintained the migration zone excisions, and kept Christmas Island as an offshore processing centre.

Instead, it beefed up spending on border protection and anti-people-smuggling exercises, announcing a $654 million package in the 2009 budget.

The Malaysia Solution was announced in May this year.

So have a look at the chart - draw your own conclusions about what worked and what didn't. If this is to be an argument about whose methods best reduce boat arrivals, then it might help to look at the policy chronology.

If Mr Metcalfe had his way and we asked all the difficult questions involved in this area, we'd need a lot more charts.

Comments (153)

Comments for this story are closed.

Bob the Battler:

05 Sep 2011 3:57:35pm

I think what the chart shows very clearly, with respect to the last 15 years, is that there was a wave of refugees coming from the middle east prior to 9/11, the Afghanistan War and the 2003 Iraq War, so hopefully that might silence some of the die-hard spin meisters for Labor who keep repeating that the Howard Government caused the boat arrivals to increase. Sorry but thats not supported by the facts.

And secondly it shows also that the Rudd Government policy change was a causal factor in the current term. It changed a deterrent policy into a pull factor. It changed a policy designed to stop people smugglers deciding who comes to Australia into open slather for people smuggling criminals, who are now busier than ever after the Malaysia deal has come to an end.

Next years figures will be very telling when the recent events have been factored in.

Amaril:

05 Sep 2011 4:54:32pm

What is it with you people? Take an article and immediately attack a side of politics as if the world ending is their fault. I'm quietly waiting for the attack on the public service, in this instance the Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship, for some supposed aggreived action or worse, supposed bias.

The piece asks us to consider *all* the causal links, not make snide remarks like school children. I'd argue that rather than allow constructive debate, paragraph 3 seems to highlight how very quickly that is stiffled, and allows comments like yours to be perpetuated.

Lewis of The Hills:

bobtonnor:

05 Sep 2011 6:36:16pm

stop the boats or we will all be swamped, er hang on minute if we take every single one of the boat people and every single one of the 'other' 13500 refugees we currently take, and then stop one days international flights there will be no difference in overseas arrivals! hey problems solved, the rednecks can get back to being aussie and listen to jimmy Barnes knocking out working class man..oh no hang a minute old jimmy is an immigrant..damn these pesky foreigners!

OUB :

05 Sep 2011 7:19:59pm

Time to get real Bob. We take a fixed(ish) number of refugees every year. The folks that come by boat displace those sitting hopelessly in camps around the world for years on end. There is no justice in this, more worthy people miss out on emigrating to Australia because folks on boats decide to promote their cause. People who come by plane are generally tourists. They don't compete in the already stretched housing market, they come, do their thing and POQ.

Bruce:

BJA:

05 Sep 2011 8:25:57pm

Are you suggesting that, except for the indigenes, we are all "boat people" or perhaps "aeroplane people", in the same way that if you mate a giraffe with a giraffe, if there is a result, it is likely to be a giraffe?That being so, what would you get if you mated John Howard with Pauline Hanson?

scott:

chipinga:

06 Sep 2011 6:56:59am

With about 15 million refugees currently trying to find somewhere to go your arguement is unsound. If we adopt a policy of taking every single refugee who tries to come by boat we will send a loud and clear message for the masses to make their way to Indonesia.

We do not want the huge problems that Italy, UK and the USA have with the flood of illegal immigrants.

Maybe we only have the few that arrive because of our border protection policies.

captn:

05 Sep 2011 8:48:10pm

Hi Lewis

Ironically - given your immediate post - I think Amaril was making a non-partisan criticism about how every single abc article gets hammered by posters with such amazingly heavy party bias in their worldview that they are unable to comment on any topic without expressing stalker-ese loving support for one side of politics and / or utter hatred for the other parties.

If I could extrapolate further, I think Amaril may even be questioning how such posters can have such difficulty understanding that policy debates can exist outside their dualistic framework of politics that they even assume that every single article or other comment is entirely about either providing insurmountable support for the perfectly reasoned common-sense viewpoint of their favorite bunch of rich old people in suits - or else it must be a piss-poor attempt to justify the baby-killing lies of the particular brand of filthy rabble such posters disagree with.

Of course perhaps Lewis is on the money and I am dead wrong and Amaril is in fact trying to secretly mud the clear waters of policy "truth" to appease the poster's dark over-masters (mistresses?) from whichever party it is Lewis doesn't vote for... but I doubt it.

Amaril:

06 Sep 2011 9:06:11am

Thank you Captn, your analysis of my writing is spot on. It is a shame that others don't quite share your abilities or forsight.

It would appear yet another piece designed to have us think (who'd have thunk it?), is instead hijacked by those frothing at the mouth to exclaim their party/leader is better/stronger/can piss further than the other. I remember doing things like that, when I was 5. Yet another wasted opportunity.

Oh, and Lewis, for the record, I support neither major party. Neither major party is intelligent enough for my support. Now, individual candidates that can engage with intelligent debate, with reasoned answers, I'm happy to consider and support. I couldn't give a toss as to what "party" they come from.

Justn Fair:

05 Sep 2011 10:10:56pm

So what? I mean this whole argument over boat arrivals and people smugglers is a parody on that clever ad for Officeworks where the scrooge boss berates a department head because someone used 2 staples.

Even if people smugglers were working 24/7 looking for boats to float our way, it still wouldn't even be a pinprick compared to the unauthorised arrivals by air.

The whole argument about boat arrivals has no other purpose other than to boost the Liberal Party's electoral fortunes. It was so in 2001 and it is so in 2011. Shameful.

Kate:

06 Sep 2011 1:30:00pm

I'm pretty sure you could argue that the Howard government had something to do with the increase of boat people, after all, he and the Liberals, along with the US and a couple of other countries went and invaded the part of the word that these people are coming from... If we take war and violence to them, don't you think they might try to escape it?

Peter F:

05 Sep 2011 4:02:17pm

The biggest thing that happened was that after the defeat of the Taliban and later Sadam Hussein more than 3 million refugees returned to Afghanistan and Iraq. On going "instability" in these regions and the continuing victimisation of Tamils has increased the push factors way beyond the levels of the peak in 2001 so we see inflows rising.

Why a country as rich as ours cannot handle 5% of the flows seen by Greece with all its economic problems or 10% of the flows absorbed by Italy is beyond me. Have we just become the most selfish country on earth

Anthony:

michelle:

05 Sep 2011 11:03:33pm

Yeah, you're right. All those lazy, lay-about refugee migrants and their children and grandchildren, with their businesses and qualifications and careers and all that tax they pay. Doesn't it make you mad to see people making opportunities for themselves and their children?

Seriously, magoo, which particular wave of refugees are you talking about? Certainly many refugees are dependent on social welfare to begin with, and older refugees are often dependent on a pension or payment for the rest of their lives (not unlike many Australians). Many refugees develop skills or set up small businesses, and past generations of refugees have the reputation for being extremely hardworking. Furthermore, they instilled this work ethic in the mindset of their children.

Lastly, refugees are usually settled in cities so that they have access to educational facilities, employment opportunities etc, allowing them to build skills so they can contribute to their local community. I'm not sure what you are trying to imply about people being more likely to be dependent on welfare if they live in a "big city".

Wining Pom:

Aydin:

Ahyoo Serious:

05 Sep 2011 4:57:53pm

I agree with you Peter. Unfortunately people like "Bob the Battler" above cannot see past our own shores. They don't understand that the numbers of refugees are influenced by what is happening in their places of origin and has nothing to do with Australia's inhumane policies.

Bob the Battler:

06 Sep 2011 9:35:54am

Well actually Ahyoo, I am very much pro-refugee but I am also very anti-spin. Several years ago I assisted an Iranian family gain refugee status in India (they would have been killed / imprisoned if returned to Iran) and the family are now living in Canada thanks to the UNHCR and the Canadian government. During the time we were battling to get UNHCR recognition for the family they were approached several times by agents of people smugglers, in northern India, who for thousands of US dollars would arrange their passage to Australia. The Iranian family were assured that it was easy to get to Australia by these criminal agents. We told them time and again to not deal with these people but to allow the UNHCR processes to be worked through. They eventually got out after some years, the system did work for them, although I concede it does not always work.

My comment was only intended to reflect that there are currently very strong pull factors in Australia and that the push factors have been used as a tool to denigrate the previous government by those who themselves have a political axe to grind. I think the figures and the historical timeline speak for themselves.

SN:

06 Sep 2011 11:52:29am

All you are proving is that it doesn't really matter how HARD it is to get to Australia or how difficult and long winded the asylum process is, people smugglers will misrepresent things because that is how they will make the most money!

noir-moi:

05 Sep 2011 5:11:31pm

I too worry about our compassion and xenophobic hysteria.However, I would dearly like to see credible analysis of the economical and social impacts on the economically stressed countries you refer to (Greece and Italy). Both are teetering on the brink of fiscal basket case status.If it can be shown the impacts are as manageable as you imply, that would go a long way to dispelling the fear mongered by our redneck press.

David:

05 Sep 2011 5:32:07pm

People may settle into Greece for a pathway into Europe. I recall in Britain that the left was arguing people arrived in the UK as first settlement refuguees, somehow skipping the whole European continent.

Thoes arriving in Greece do not live in Greece. They move on to greener pastures.

And as why we can not handle so many migrants I would bring forth two points1) About 20% of the world lives on less than $2 a day. It would take them about 7 years of no expenditure to pay a people smuggler and they live in violent and corrupt places. Are these not truer refuguees?2) Any migration intake must look at our natural resources. Do you recall what happened with Toowomba? They needed to cart in water for domestic supply (admittedly party to refusing recycled water). What would happen if a small city like Canberra ran out of water or even worse a large isolated city like Perth?

Craig:

Therefore we should simply decide who we accept by their income level - the long-term unemployed and unemployable being thereby the most eligible.

I recall a certain boatload of refugees in the 1930s who were very wealthy indeed. They pawned family heirlooms, jewelry and sold their homes in order to pay for their fares.

Unfortunately others, like you, thought their comparative wealth reflected comparative safety, and they ended up being sent back to their port of origin. Most were killed, with their remaining valuables stolen.

Being comparatively wealthy does not make you less of a refugee, it simply takes a load off poorly funded UN camps by allowing people to seek their own refuge - often by plane rather than by boat.

Mark2:

05 Sep 2011 10:10:46pm

ok wealth does not make one less or more of a refugee. It just gives a great advantage.Those who have the ability to pay a people smuggler can claim refugee status upon arrival. Those who without the ability to pay a smuggler just languish in a camp somewhere and wait for the hand of god.

Ford:

06 Sep 2011 10:57:18am

I'd argue that someone living in Indonesia or Malaysia (let's stop pretending they're "fleeing") with no money is much worse off than someone in the same situation with tens of thousands of dollars.To say otherwise is just silly.I trust you're not attempting to imply that Malaysians or Indonesians would murder refugees.Sounds a bit racist to me.Seems the left are in a quandary, they want to condemn Malaysia and Indonesia for their 'standards' or their 'attitide' towards refugees (i.e. they're muslims) but without coming out and stating it's because they don't feel comfortable sending children to an Islamic state.

Aydin:

Baijid:

05 Sep 2011 7:24:43pm

It is very ignorant of people to complain about asylum seekers, when Australia only receives 1.6% of the total Asylum seekers application over 44 industrialized nations What is the issue? Refugee camps in desert stricken Africa, house over a million refugees on bear minimum UN funding.

Australia received 4,500 asylum seekers by boat last year; compare this to 200,000 new permanent residents and an estimation of 50,000 visa over stayers from such places as New Zealand, Britain and the US. This estimation does not include people from other European countries and Asia.

For all those Australians who have been economically disadvantaged by supposedly boat people and migrants? Relax for your current social economic status to change; the Australia population would have to exceed 50 million We currently have 22 million?

Australia is signatory to both the 1951, UN Convention Relating to Status Refugees and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). We have an international obligation to help people who are in dyer need for our help. This does not mean we ship them to Malaysia, but processing them onshore with respects to human rights and dignity.

earl:

05 Sep 2011 9:06:04pm

The real problem with asylum seekers has changed from terrorism/security to cost. Studies show that significant numbers remain unemployed for years after coming to Australia. This situation is untenable and the most important thing to do is to create a new visa class stopping benefits after 3-6 months. That should certainly encourage more productivity. If they say then cant do skilled work, i think there are plenty of vacancies for unskilled labour.

IH8SPIN:

06 Sep 2011 9:45:49am

Finally, someone else who sees the longer picture.

The "Economic refugees" departed from a "free" (thats more often than not Indonesia) country to come to a "everything for free country" having passed 5 or 6 countries enroute to acheive their goal - Gold mine of Australian compassion. That's what annoys me. As an Australian I dont have the same privileges and neither does my pensioner mother and we never will have unless we get on a boat and rearrive.

At least those flying in and overstaying are doing it on there own costing and not to the taxpayer.

I heard a from an extremely reliable source - that recently a 737 aircraft was used to fly one (1) individual across the country with 8 minders attached. If this is true - "The inmates are really incharge of the asylum"

When will they be forced to make it on their own like the rest (well almost) of us

And as an aside - one never hears of the infrastructure (water reserves) being increased to look to this stupid increase. Next thing all the Victorians will be instructed how to wash in a jam tin and save water and be made to feel guilty for using a full jam tins worth.

no answers:

05 Sep 2011 4:02:20pm

and from the graph you can see that the first movements of new wave boats had just registered before Rudd came to government - you can't see the increased activity in Indonesia on the graph and don't forget the increasing tensions in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka that were dominant at the time. Why doesn't anyone have an explanation for Howard's increase in 1998 but everyone seems to know why the boats increased this time around?

Coasty:

06 Sep 2011 3:39:45pm

Actually I think you'll find the 1998 push factors are quite easy to discern - the taliban were making life very hard for everyone, except themselves, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq the UN imposed sanctions and blockade were also making life very hard for the Iraqi people. It would seem quite reasonable that those conditions in the late 90's brought a wave of refugees out of the middle east.

Toss:

05 Sep 2011 4:04:45pm

Given that the ALP can only hope to win respect (and not love) from the Australian electorate between now and 2013, could rigorous policy-making win the day?

Is it possible that our Government might rediscover its courage and its principles? To stop trembling at the sight of Tony Abbott on TV and the sound of Alan Jones on 2GB, and allow quality to emerge? Not in some crazy-brave path to electoral extinction, but a politically skilful persuasion of the Australian electorate that better things are possible?

Hermit:

the working man:

05 Sep 2011 8:51:23pm

Hermit,Howard won two elections on fear of the boats .This is thesame man who was in power during children overboard,Tampa,AWB scandal,waterfront thugs training in the middle east,workchoices,core - non core promises. You talk about shadows andnoises,I talk about skeletons. But then again the born to ruleliberals scream the loudest.

Dan:

05 Sep 2011 4:07:05pm

Thanks Annabel, I always love your work because its humorous, intelligent and well researched.

I've been thinking lately that another part of this refugee problem that is often overlooked is the need to change our national anthem. You can't help but feel like a hypocrite sitting there singing - for those who come across the seas we've boundless plains to share.... or maybe that is just me!

rad_melb:

simon:

05 Sep 2011 4:08:31pm

No one mentions the reversal of the onus of proof. The worst, worst, unpicking Rudd did was to reverse the onus of proof of asylum seekers identity. Under Howards pacific solution, show up with no identity papers:

No Papers, fine take a pew while we positively identify you. Get comfortable this will take a while.

Thats what broke the business model of the people smugglers most of all.

ABC4LNP:

bothsides:

06 Sep 2011 6:42:30am

Don't forget that border security is also an important issue. Australia has been named as target of terrorist attention. Allowing anyone with no identity documents to enter Australia is a stupid risk that no government should be willing to take.

People who arrive by plane and overstay are greater in number BUT they have identities and aren't on any watch lists. If boat people kept all of their papers, it would be a very quick and easy process to check their identities and bring them in.

pj:

"People who arrive by plane and overstay are greater in number BUT they have identities and aren't on any watch lists."

You do realise that the MO for the modern terrorist organisation is to indulge in multiple identities to avoid said watch lists, yeah?

Sleeper agents have been the norm for decades, most of the terrorist attacks of late have been made by either home-grown people, or people in the country of the attack for at least 5 or 6 years. And I have never heard of a single attack being done by an asylum seeker, either arriving by boat or otherwise. They generally have their papers in order - it's actually easier for the terrorists to play along with the normal entry proceedures than to go through refugee processes in almost every country on the planet.

There is virtually zero evidence, anywhere the world over, of asylum seeker policy leading to terrorist attack.

Mark:

06 Sep 2011 3:20:21pm

Are you serious...

I do not think that a terriorist would purposely stow away on a boat for a trip across the sea in which they may or may not make it to an island named after a christian holy day and then proceed to wait for say, 12 months to get to the mainland so they can go and carry out their jihadist mission!

David:

05 Sep 2011 5:34:27pm

Good point. How did you pay the smugglers? Did you have a bank card at any time? How did you get to the country of the smuglers? Did you use a passport? Missing documents are the biggest issue with boat arrivals. Plane arrivals at least have a passport which is recorded and we know what flight they took in.

Robbo1:

05 Sep 2011 7:18:42pm

Sadly the only way that the people smugglers can now be stopped from selling entry into Australia followed by a lifetime of taxpayer funded benefits is to withdraw from the UN refugee convention. After the publicity of the first deportations people smugglers would have nothing to market and the boats would stop. In the long run peoples lives would be saved by not risking them on people smugglers boats.

MikeB:

05 Sep 2011 4:10:37pm

There was one way to stop boats last time: sink a boat - leave the sailors and asylum seekers to drown. It ought to be unthinkable, an Australian government would be involved in that. Unfortunately it is very thinkable.

Tony Kevin in "A certain maritime incident" proved the government knew of SIEV X - and monitored its departure,and failure to arrive. He also raised questions, of whether the Australian government sabotaged it. And whether the government - which knew a desperately overloaded ship had left, and hadnt arrived - deliberately chose not to search & rescue. Serious allegations, and plausible allegations.

Besides , there were 5-6 deaths documented from the last wave of boats - people drowned at Ashmore, and others who were towed back towards Indonesia who never made it to shore. Documented in the Senate inquiry, and by David Marr's in "Dark Victory".

It is worth remembering that these actually happened, and worse, were active choices, not mere negligence.

folly:

05 Sep 2011 4:53:29pm

You're right MikeB - it is entirely plausibe that the Australian government sabotaged SIEV-X, thus murdering hundreds of innocent and helpless people. I mean, given that John Howard was known to eat a live baby for breakfast each day (fact!), why wouldn't anyone believe this? It's not as though it is outlandish tripe now is it?

I also heard that the Rupert Murdoch blew up the twin towers to generate a news story. Plus, did you know that our government puts secret mind control drugs into vegemite? They know that I know, and time is running out for me - you have to get the truth out!

I think I think:

Michael Too:

05 Sep 2011 5:46:26pm

That's quite incorrect. Mike B, and in absolute contravention of the facts.

The sinking was not in Australian waters, the boat was not sighted by any Australian ship or aircraft, it was never detected on radar, the departure was unknown to any Australian authority, to the RAN, to the Customs Service or to DIAC and the Government did not learn of the sinking until three days after it had happened.

Please stick to the facts and avoid lunatic conspiracy theories such as an Australian act of sabotage.

BJA:

05 Sep 2011 8:48:32pm

"the departure was unknown to any Australian authority" - you don't know that.I don't believe that there was anything like the effort put into rescuing those from SievX as there was put into rescuing one English sailor from the Southern Ocean.I firmly believe that had there been as much known about the passage of, for example, a boatload of white people fleeing persecution in Hong Kong as was known about the preparations for Siev X to put to sea, they would have been rescued. There are many ways of being ignorant. To the extent that the powers that were, were ignorant in the matter of SIEV X they could hardly have done a better job of ensuring their ignorance - to the extent that ignorance can be used as an excuse.

Dugong:

05 Sep 2011 8:58:47pm

Apply Occam's Razor: the simplest answer is most likely the correct one.

Option 1: Australian Navy Divers swam out and placed explosives against an unarmed, civilian vessel, with the express intent of sinking it and drowning all aboard. Despite this happening about 10 years ago, none of the Naval personnel involved (some retired by now, surely) have spoken out at a scandal that would undoubtably result in people of authority being jailed for very, very long times.

Option2: An overcrowded (even you admit that) and barely seaworthy vessel founders at sea and sinks.

Lucy:

06 Sep 2011 3:27:23pm

Well, the sinking of the Lusitania (carrying military equipment and explosives unbeknownst to its hundreds of drowned British and American passengers) in the First World War by a German U-boat served political purposes for the British Government by helping the bring America into the war. Churchill (First Lord of the Admiralty(?) was pleased)Strange things do happen in perilous times..

As other examples of convenient happenings: What about the lie by Menzies that Vietnam invited Australia into the Vietnam conflict. And then there are the WMD in Iraq that Howard was so sure about.

Occam's Razor certainly excises the likelihood that RAN personnel sabotaged SIEV-X. However of testimony of survivors was that shadowy vessels passed by them as they struggled to stay afloat at night in the oily waters.Occam's Razor might also reinforce the thought that the awful fate of the 300 or 400 passengers of the SIEV-X played some part in that steep downward drop at 2001 -2002 on Annabel Crabb's graph.

Ford:

06 Sep 2011 11:08:20am

That accusation actually brought tears of mirth to my eyes.The Left has become increasingly desperate since Gillard came to power...and their desperation is manifesting itself in these increasingly absurd claims (usually the territory of the neo cons) which further erode their credibility.Can the Left's answer to George Dubya Bush be far off? Or is Bob Brown filling that position already.Stupid people: annoying no matter who they vote for.

gv:

05 Sep 2011 5:00:42pm

The point is that by not deterring boat arrivals, we effectively encourage them. This means more people putting themselves and/or their children at risk. Whether this is more or less compassionate than offshore processing is a legitimate question.

In other words, it is not so obvious how better to stop being bit players in a dirty game of human trade.

Robbo1:

05 Sep 2011 8:20:42pm

If the UN refugee convention is withdrawn from and people smuggler boat arrivals are deported to somewhere that they did not pay for, the boats would stop because the people smugglers would have nothing to sell. This in turn could save countless lives of refugees who might drown before being picked up en route to the visa and benefits recipiant factory.

Ford:

06 Sep 2011 11:10:36am

What genocide, Marilyn?The one in Indonesia or the one in Malaysia? I've heard little of either...no doubt a News Ltd conspiracy.I've noticed you never respond to those pointing out flaws in your posts, Marilyn, and the only content of your posts are words like "moron" "dingbats" "racist" "Valium" (Ok, I added the last one, you should consider doing likewise).Why can't you ever respond to people's rebuttals or provide any evidence or arguments to support your statements, Marilyn?

Marilyn Shepherd:

RogerM113:

05 Sep 2011 5:14:25pm

Marilyn, I like your style, don't hold back. If our Aboriginals stood at Botony Bay and sunk one or two ships, we wouldn't have this situation.

And people call this a Christian Country, Mr Abbott, Mr. Howard and yes Ms. Gillard, (sorry, you are not a believer, me neither, thats ok, ethics is a non exclusive notion), how can you people lay in bed straight. I reckon your God should smote the lot of you.

internationalist:

05 Sep 2011 4:27:50pm

It is certain that a number of events collided in 2001. In addition, the Howard Government ordered the navy to fire across the bows of a number of boats (not on the chart) but the final terror was SIEV X and the 353 who died. These were mostly women and children coming to meet husbands and fathers whose TPVs prevented them being together any other way. This was the seminal event. It was publicised all over the world and absolutely "smashed the people smugglers' business plan". The sea is a terrifying option for those from Middle East, but better than the alternative - being killed at home.

David:

The Middle East is well enough off to pay for people smugglers. Pity that Billions of others will never have that chance. And whilst there is the odd death so is there with any transport method.

I would be interested in knowing two things for each migrant. The percieved and actual risk of death as a percentage for each mode of transport they used.And the amount of time they spent in other countries. If you can live in Asia for months or even years than you are not in imminent danger. A migrant truley in danger would be killed after too long or they would be visibly malnourished. If you do not know what I mean by "visibly malnourished" just look at a Somalian Refuguee camp where the locals are too poor to pay for a boat.

tobias:

05 Sep 2011 11:20:33pm

So your answer to "how do you recognise a true refugee?" is they are either dead or starving to death. Very Pythonesque. But it does solve the problem of whether we should accept refugees. There won't be any live ones by your definition.

Geoffrey Chaucer:

05 Sep 2011 4:31:38pm

This may sound naive, but what baffles me is the term "obligations". The so-called obligations come under the terms of a UN charter a past Australian government signed some years ago. This was that government policy at the time, but governments change, policies change, and circumstances change.

Once the government of a country signs a UN agreement, does it mean that the signatory country can never, ever withdraw from this agreement, no matter what circumstances have become or what policies a new government wishes to pursue?

Ahyoo Serious:

05 Sep 2011 5:03:31pm

Yes, you are right; it sounds very naive. Just because there is a different prime minister or a different party in power does not mean that what has been agreed to in the past by the representatives of the people is no longer valid.

Geoffrey Chaucer:

Mawson:

05 Sep 2011 5:34:57pm

The answer to your question is yes. Under international law, once a treaty is entered into, it can not be withdrawn from, unless the treaty itself provides that States can withdraw from it (which is very rare). (Article 56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969)

(Also note that Art 60 provides that discharge for material breach does not apply to humanitarian treaties).

The Vienna Convention came into force in January 1980 so it doesn't technically apply to the 1951 Refugee Convention but principles of customary international law (i.e. the common law of international law) which applied before the Vienna Convention, will apply to the Refugee Convention which has the same effect.

Art 62 provides that a "fundamental change in circumstances" can provide the basis of the termination of a treaty, but this is extremely hard to prove (e.g war does not automatically terminate a treaty etc).

Isabella:

05 Sep 2011 6:11:26pm

Are you seriously suggesting that Australia withdraws from a fundamental United Nations convention steeped in human rights because we get a few thousand asylum seekers on our shores each year. Seriously... that is just so sad. We are a wonderful country that can do so much better than we do. Instead of even contemplating withdrawing from this convention because it's all too hard we need to come up with an innovative solution. None of this political rubbish, but a solution that is humane, compassionate, but also works some way to ensure we are not inundated with new arrivals. I believe this is possible. We, the Australian people, will understand, to date we have simply been fed hysterical and sensational rubbish information. Time for the truth and to move on to something much better that meets our requirements under the Convention.

wigwam:

Neilly G:

05 Sep 2011 4:52:49pm

Could we also have a nice graph showing the wars we have been engaged in, the number of troops we have sent to fight in other countries and the percentage of GDP spent on these wars? I bet there will be some direct correlation. It is no accident, I believe, that the asylum seekers come from those areas where we have been gratuitously exercising our military strength.

David:

05 Sep 2011 5:43:51pm

TrueFor if we never touched a dictators country we would never really know about their crimes against humanity and people would be too scared to leave. Shame on us we should keep these violent regimes in place so we do not need to consider wether the richer people of these countries are in true need while our troops die for their cause.

Neilly G:

05 Sep 2011 7:22:42pm

We, of course, could never countenance the possibility that we might be implicated in helping cause the mayhem that drive these people from their homes. We wear the white hats and all of those we fight wear the black hats. It is simple isn't it. Our troops die and kill for the cause of some and, yeah, that some are always the goodies and we know what's best for the rest.

tobias:

05 Sep 2011 11:24:47pm

Well, many of those regimes were supported at some point by the US and her buddies ie us. Saddam Hussein was supported by the US. The Saudi Arabians and Pakistan despite their atrocious track record are still supported by Western "powers".

perplexed:

05 Sep 2011 4:53:22pm

I think what people who scream illegals, que jumpers, boat people etc etc have to ask themselves is exactly why? they think like this? Me thinks it's because you are all easily brainwashed by political parties and also have no interstest in actually informing yourselves of the facts, couple that with a cold heartless demeanour. I could go on and point out some facts, but I think that you should all do that yourselves, in this day and age of the internet there is NO excuse for ignorance.

David:

05 Sep 2011 6:20:08pm

I think you are illformed. The boat arivals bribe people to arrive in a country often spending months before hand working in countries on their way here. Also many loose their identification on their way despite having access to thousands of dollars. What happened to their bank card and their passport?About 20% of the world live on $2 a day and saving $100 would be phenominal for them. It would take close to 7 years of no expenditure for them to pay for a boat smuggler. Your ingnorance or cold heartedness towards thoes stuck in refuguee camps for decades is disapointing. If someone if a refugue why dont we send them to them to a UN Somalian Refuguee camp with a lump and take more people back to become Australian?This would seperate thoes truley risking their lives with thoes who are not. And the UN camps do keep people alive, just not with free education and facilities many of our homeless in Australia could only dream of. Any reduction of numbers and cash donation Australia makes to the UN Somalian refuguee camps would further benifit the situation of refuguees whom have fled across roads of rape (I mean that literally) to only recieve nutrition cookies and water for a weeks supplies.

Belinda:

05 Sep 2011 10:32:40pm

you don't need to be starving to need help. You could be stuck in a situation of war and terror. An asylum seeker may have sold all of their possessions (such as inherited jewellery etc- or perhaps even sold themselves) for an opportunity to escape. Many who opt for the boats have in fact languished in refugee camps for years, but cannot see any light at the end of that particular tunnel. I think a good solution would be for Australia to take more refugees from the UN camps and perhaps to better resource the UNHCR to improve processing times. It seems to me that sending people off shore for processing is more of an appeal to the bogan australian voting public than anything else. Making refugee camps a more attractive and hopeful prospect could deter people from finding their way onto a boat in a much more positive way than building a fear of australia.

Goanna:

05 Sep 2011 4:54:11pm

"The Malaysia Solution was announced in May this year.

So have a look at the chart - draw your own conclusions about what worked and what didn't. If this is to be an argument about whose methods best reduce boat arrivals, then it might help to look at the policy chronology."

Well, whatever the chart shows, it does NOT show that the "Howard/ Abbott" Pacific solution was better than the Malaysian solution at reducing the number of arrivals. The chart finishes at June 2011. The Malaysian solution had not even been put into effect by end June 2011.

Of course, the biggest problem with this article is the presumption that the only issue is the number of boat arrivals in Australia. We all know Howard solved this problem in part by simply excising the external territories from the migration zone. You also need to look at what proportion of people who arrived in the exercised areas eventually made it to Australia. Oh that's right -- the majority of them.

New Pseudonym:

Alpo:

05 Sep 2011 4:57:53pm

What the graph clearly shows is that boat people are a mixture of economic and political refugees. The ups and downs track both major economic and political international events. People looking for a better opportunity in life for them and their families or escaping political turmoil are not going to be stopped by Tony Abbott or anybody else (just ask the Europeans and the Americans). They will stop coming when their countries of orgin are at peace and provide opportunities. If individuals can stay at home, with their people, language and culture, they will. When life becomes unbearable at home many will decide to leave. Time for all of us to look at ourselves in the mirror and ask what are we going to do about it. Let's process the refugees on the mainland and stop all this political nonsense.

ed:

05 Sep 2011 5:00:57pm

A more worthwhile job for Mr Metcalfe would be to putting a bit of muscle into kicking out the hundreds/thousands of visitor visa overstayers, including lots of Brits and former student visa holders. If that was done then it might improve that understanding of the Australian population, and demonstrate that there is a evenhanded approach to illegal entry or stay in this country. At present it looks too much like the focus is on illegal entry, rather than illegal stay.

Fejjie:

05 Sep 2011 5:17:53pm

I believe that Australia should shoulder its fair responsibility taking in refugees (in fact more than our fair share) given we are a relatively rich and stable nation. On top of this refugees are on the whole likely to be good members of society.

What I don't believe is that getting in a boat (plane or whatever) and arriving on our shores should give someone preference. This just encourages forum shopping and disadvantages those who are unable to raise the money to get here.

A refugee who is stuck in a refugee camp has just as much right (if not more so) to be given a chance to start a new life in Australia than someone who can find a way here.

We get to dictate how many/when people get resettled. I don't like the hypocrisy of people that say we need to help these arrivals but convienently forget it is at the expense of others.

rad_melb:

05 Sep 2011 11:27:49pm

Fejjie, I think the point has been made before (but apparently not often enough), that there is no "at the expense of others" - essentially, the various refugee centres around the world have a specific number of staff who can (or are told to) only process a limited number of people in a given period. What boat people do is not "jump a (perceived) queue", but rather create an *additional* processing point, so that in effect, more refugees are being processed in the same given period. And I don't believe that this means that we actually end up taking in more refugees than was otherwise intended, as the existing methods are just too slow (and I can't help wondering if that's deliberate) to accept the number of refugees that are officially "planned". As others have said, this country has had a multitude of "boat people" in the past, and our present society is far better off for having them, so in regards to the current crop - bring 'em on!

Ford:

06 Sep 2011 11:20:45am

In fact, boat arrivals take up to 20% of places from migrants who are awaiting settlement (source http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/AsylumFacts.pdf)So even once they are 'processed' they may be denied a place as 20% of the available places have been taken by those with the money to get in ahead of those without money...the very definition of queue jumping, in fact.What you posted is an outright lie :)

rad_melb:

06 Sep 2011 1:15:38pm

Ford, thank you for the reference - it really is a concise balanced guide to much of what is being debated here.

However, my reading of it is that the Australian Government has an agreement to accept a certain number of refugees from the UNHCR each year - and so far as I can tell, this number doesn't change. In *addition* to this, the Government has a "notional" number of 13,000 refugees that it will accept in total each year. So, the UNHCR refugee intake is "set", and the "boat people" are only competing against other "non-UNHCR" asylum seekers. The report to which you refer suggests that the people arriving by boat are more likely to be classed as genuine refugees and subsequently resettled here. I think this supports what I was getting at.

John:

05 Sep 2011 5:22:21pm

Some of Howard's policies may have "worked" at the time, but they really were only going to stop the people smugglers until they came up with new plans and systems. The only reason people will really stop coming is if where they live is safe.

paulh:

05 Sep 2011 5:23:46pm

Ms Crabbe you also miss the pull factors generated by Labors open door policy and also ignore the HUNDREDS killed or missing at sea since Ms Gillard's immigration policy was implemented(the one she came up with as shadow immigration minister) isn't it fortunate thet the abc journo's can ignore facts and manipulate data to defend the Gillard gov but anyone that disagrees is attacked or their comments ignored because they differ with Labor/abc

Simon:

05 Sep 2011 5:34:00pm

Dear Annabel, I am tired of claims by people such as yourself that waves of asylum-seeking boat people, adding up to thousands per year, is no big deal. And that we should therefore scrap mandatory detention.

It is my considered opinion that waves of boat people, adding up to thousands per year, is completely, completely unacceptable, and that we simply cannot run the country this ridiculous way. It is seriously undesirable and in fact untennable from many perspectives. And yes, we do face the long term possibility of getting swamped with desperate people if the forces of folly, including the High Court, succeed in getting it established as a legitimate way of getting to Australia.

For these reasons too, mandatory detention is absolutely necessary.

Those agitating against it leave me screaming with frustration. It is nothing more than a trendy, fashionable pose to be "against" mandatory detention but it is also a dangerous, irresponsible and indulgent pose that is made without considering reality and puts the country at long term risk.

tobias:

michelle:

05 Sep 2011 11:28:15pm

Don't actually recall a High Court decision that set a precedent establishing that these boat arrivals were legally "legitimate", but hey, perhaps I missed it amongst the cacophony that passes as policy debate in this country.

The Colonel:

05 Sep 2011 5:44:31pm

Perhaps the graph might flatten out if we introduced a policy of shooting at boats as they arrive. But that would be inhumane wouldn't it? The point is, this can never be a debate SOLELY about stopping EVERY boat.

The truth is, there has never been more than a neglible number of boats arriving here. Change the scale on the vertical axis to accomodate numbers of arrivals into other countries around the world and ours will show up as little more than a flat line along the bottom.

"Stop the boats"? They never started. Just treat these few desperate people humanely. Can't be that hard.

Alan Thornhill:

Schnappi:

05 Sep 2011 6:22:29pm

Labor should bite the bullet and do what the majority want and bring in onshore processing ,perhaps with TPVs,what have they got to lose.Cannot see abbott going to an election to stop the boats and restore offshore processing ,as intelligent people would understand that the greens would not pass such policy.The court decision could be abbotts downfall and not the PM, Pssst listen very carefully do not mention any of this to the murdoch press.

Rob:

05 Sep 2011 6:34:42pm

I think Australians are well served by senior public servants like Andrew Metcalfe.

Both political parties have failed to show leadership on this issue.The Liberal party has sought to exploit boat arrivals for perceived political advantage. In doing so they have thrown out the window their principles and moral standing.And now we have the Labor Party challenging them for the race to the bottom. It's incredible that we have an Immigration Minister willing to deport unaccompanied children to Malaysia when he is their guardian.

So Andrew Metcalfe is to be congratulated in raising the obvious. We are heading down the wrong path and someone needs to say "the emperor has no clothes."

Pity it has to be a public servant and not one of our political leaders.

pj:

06 Sep 2011 11:38:06am

Maybe, just maybe, because we increased our humanitarian visa intake over the period you can account for the discrepancy. For example, from the UNHCR camps in Indonesia, we accepted a quota of 50 in 2007. In 2009 that figure was 500 and it's 1,000 this year. We do this to start to chip away at the backlog that is about 36 years deep (on current numbers) for processing, and it's one way to chip away at the people smugglers business model - albeit a slow one.

But, increasing those figures is going to have a huge impact, artifically so, on the numbers of claims we process in a given year, especially when considered in a world context.

Facts are fine, but without understanding of the way those facts are shaped and the factors leading to them, it's just numbers on a peice of paper. And open to misinterperatation.

Andrew Evans:

05 Sep 2011 6:55:04pm

The fact that we see the boat people as a problem, is the problem.The numbers are so small as to be insignificant in the scheme of things.With appropriate screening to weed out any terrorist elements, we should let the poor bastards in and give them a fair go.This whole politicised debate is being used by both sides of politics to beat each other up, and by a bunch of shallow, small minded journalists to pad their sketchy news programs, when their really is no news worth mentioning.If the press stopped inflaming the situation for a couple of months, the whole emotional debate would fade into the backgound, and a level of fair play and justice may actually enter into our dealing with these poor desperate folk (who just want a chance at a better life).You should all be ashamed at yourselves for fueling this frenzy for the sake of pumping your own worthless careers - try doing some real work and finding some real "news" instead of continuing the political feeding frenzy at the sake of these poor people's lives.

mack:

05 Sep 2011 7:35:52pm

Ah yes - the Global Lifeboat theory.

The UN Refugee Convention demands that we pick up and resettle the losers of every ethnic conflict on the Planet, but only if they can afford the price of a people smuggler to get them into our northern waters. No limit.

And poor buggers waiting in a refugee camp in a third world country somewhere can go jump.

Roland:

05 Sep 2011 8:37:20pm

"The UN Refugee Convention demands that we pick up and resettle the losers of every ethnic conflict on the Planet, but only if they can afford the price of a people smuggler to get them into our northern waters. No limit."

Actually, we have a policy that if the people can afford the price of a fake passport, and a plane ticket, they will be right up in the queue, but if the person can only pay a people smuggler to get them into our northern waters, they get toss around from one 3rd country to another....

And there is a limit to how many we are taking in.

Both side of politics has got their solution completely wrong, if they don't want more refugees coming, stop creating them in the first place with their failed foreign policies.

Robert:

05 Sep 2011 8:59:51pm

A sensible look at Immigration policy? It's already been done by the previous Coalition government and continues with the Coalition in Opposition. You don't need Mr Metcalfe to find it. I am NOT a member of any political party...I have no axe to grind but I see it for what it is.This is a monumental failure of the Rudd and Gillard government/s. It's as obvious as the nose on your face.The only real explanation for your article is to spread falsehoods about the Coalition and protect this dreadful incompetent Gillard government.My guess is it's girlie thing.Julia Gillard is a feminist and so I should give her as much support as I can because I also am a woman. I don't have any problem with that ...just be honest with your readers and say so.

Reza from Quetta:

05 Sep 2011 9:07:46pm

These people are not Afghani. They claim that they are from Jaghoori and Ghazni, but this is a lie! The vast majority of them are from Hazara Town and the surrounding areas in Quetta. They come with relatives and change their name and age.

duncan:

05 Sep 2011 9:47:59pm

Could it be that the Howard govt did a deal with the Indonesians? Something like "We throw you a few young Aussie drug mules in Bali so you get to pander to your domestic audience that you are clamping down on those immoral (white) foreigners. In return you make sure those boats stop leaving Indonesia and we get to pander to our Islamophobic domestic audience that if we treat refugees like animals they"ll stop coming." We'll both look good! Certainly neither side is morally above this kind of behavior. And the AFP did rat on those young drug mules knowing they would face the death penalty. Was this not against AFP rules? Why did they do it and who gave the go ahead? Little Jonny?

Stan Pierce:

Aptitude Design:

05 Sep 2011 10:29:56pm

I am yet to find in the UNHR document where one has the right to pick & choose a destination. None of those whom I met that had to leave via the Iron Curtain had bought a trip to Australia, only to " across the border", or else made their own arrangements to slip away. Then they waited. I would have thought a desk in a consulate in India or Pakistan, or Indonesia, ought to have been the logical answer to stopping the boats. As it is, we have a bunch of Passive- aggressive misfits trying to brow-beat us into doing what they want; and a bunch of neo-fascist do-gooders making money at this end, as well. But that is just my opinion, & who am I to have an opinion?

Mr Ed:

05 Sep 2011 10:30:31pm

A bit off topic, but can anyone clarify? It was reported early in the Malaysia Solution negotiations that Australia's side of the deal was to pay an agreed amount ($5 million?) and would take 3000 processed refugees from Malaysia. It was also reported that even if no boat people were sent to Malaysia, Australia would still pay the money and take the bona fide refugees.

Now that the High Court has canned the arrangement, is Australia still obliged to hold up their end of the deal with Malaysia?

John Graham:

05 Sep 2011 10:56:24pm

I think the proponents of dropping constraints on boat people entry/assessment should provide fully detailed alternative proposals bearing in mind the following:

1. At present we allow the entry of a limited number of refugees per annum. Each success from a boat person leaves another refugee in a camp. The difference between the two groups is essentially that boat people have more money than camp people.2. Despite the assertion that people set out from Indonesia on boats due only to push factors, there is no evidence that asylum seekers in Indonesia are under real or perceived threat, and those interviewed talk mainly about the opportunities for a better life offered by Australia rather than fear of staying in Indonesia. Thus the less problems with migrating to Australia this way, the more that will come.3. At present the legal ramifications of Indonesian boats coming to Australia mean it is a one-way trip. This means boats are of poor quality and quite likely to sink.4. Given that there are millions of genuine refugees in the world and that Australia cannot accept them all, there must be some constraint on entry and permanent residence in Australia.

Consequently, maintaining a fixed refugee intake while removing disincentives for boat people will inevitably mean either that intake from camp asylum seekers will fall, favouring the more affluent asylum seekers, or that the limitation on refugee intake must be abandoned (or applied solely to offshore asylum seekers!). If legal sanctions against the boats used are maintained, with increased demand will come a lowering of boat standards - leading to more sinkings and deaths. The only measures against this would be to remove sanctions to allow better boats (and crews), leading to a higher intake.

In summary the issues are:1. How do we limit the numbers?2. How do we ensure safety?3. How do we deal equitably with all asylum seekers, rather than advantaging those with the money?

Q. Did Australian refugee policy make any difference?A. Perhaps not, the primary factors are the "push" factors that cause people to flee in the first place. Much as I consider the invasion of Iraq to have been illegal and immoral, at least it disposed of a noisome regime, so that less Iraqis felt they needed to flee.

Q. What does all this tell us?A. People would rather live in liberal secular democracies.

If we really wanted to stop the boats, we'd let the nation be turned into an illiberal theocracy, or a gun-toting dictatorship.

ellicat:

05 Sep 2011 11:46:43pm

What I don't get with the refos is why they complain so much about the temporary conditions they have to "endure". Is it worse or better than where they came from ? If getting a roof over your head and free food, medical, education, legal representation... etc etc is worse than where you came from why did you leave home ?

From a moral perspective it would seem to me these guys should not have the use of our laws at their disposal until they have been verified as legitimate refugees with a security clearance and positive ID and are accepted for settlement.

O Y:

06 Sep 2011 12:15:24am

Met middle eastern Immigrants!! the other day in three cars, two of which I could not afford, no women, no children. Could not speak a word of english when spoken to. Got looked at like I was dirt. I hope you do-gooders have them fill your neighborhoods and make you feel as comfortable as I did and when you feel you have to move out of your houses, don't complain. Have onshore processing with strict criteria. If they are here for handouts only (which appear very generous) , ship 'em out.

davent:

06 Sep 2011 12:39:31am

i dont expect this reply to be published, mine never are. Refugee and illeagal imigrants are different. refugees dont pay people smugglers to enter the country for a price. they are que jumpers, and should be stopped. It is not the biggest issue in this country at the moment though, just another issue being stuffed up by our useless govt. I dont hold much faith in the opposition either, but hey, Im willing to give em my vote because they couldnt be any worse than Gillards muppets...or is it Browns muppets?

Mac Howard:

The "debate" is lamentable with self-serving rationalisations on all sides and that includes the "humanitarians".

There is a clearly a significant "pull" factor shown by the graphs. John Howard [i]did[\i] stop the boats whether you agree with the methods or not.

Asylum seekers do not spontaneously jump onto the nearest boat - they make a rational decision about the danger and costs of the journey against the probability of acceptance in Australia. We can do nothing about the first but have significant control over the second.

Temporary visas did little because you still made it into Australia. Nauru etc have more effect but in truth it merely delayed acceptance - it would be useless now as that is now well known. It was literally turning back the boats that stopped them coming - the knowledge that the boats simply didn't get to Australia ie zero possibility of acceptance though this was sometimes defeated by damaging the boats but thus making the trip even riskier.

The Malaysian process would work. It would stop the boats by again reducing the acceptance here to zero but without the dangerous procedure of confrontation on the high seas.

The negative is the few hundred people first returned to Malaysia to enforce the message that the policy will be carried out. But, by taking 4,000 genuine refugees from Malaysia, the government offers what should be a suitable compromise - a few hundred suffer but 4,000 benefit. In the circumstances that's a reasonable compromise.

I, personally, have no problem with expeditious onshore processing but am realistic that this may well mean losing control of the numbers coming and those numbers rising to the point where they would be unacceptable to the mainstream public. "Humanitarians" should not pretend this is unimportant nor rule out the possibility of more Christmas Island style disasters.

Ben:

06 Sep 2011 9:05:30am

Rational policy decisions in this field are a pipe dream now. We should pick a policy that reflects the public attitude, but no one's brave enough to say out loud. Let's just bite the bullet and get the navy to sink a boat - we know from The Australian that there's a good chance it'd have sunk on its own anyway (http://goo.gl/exv5M). That way, we sacrifice a few dozen lives now to save thousands over time who would have died when their boats sank on their own.

It's a little hard-hearted, sure, but perfectly rational. I mean, we accidently killed lots more of the same sort of people when we invaded the countries they came from, or supported the regimes that exterminated them and made them run (http://goo.gl/svZaO), so really, it's no different than what we've been doing already.

Might also help, Annabel, for people to actually read the fairly short paper from the Parliamentary Library that your graph came from. There's little evidence of commenters having taken even that minor bit of effort. Or have gone the step further and looked at their other papers on this topic, such as the one that reports most asylum seekers still arrive by plane (http://goo.gl/HtWB8). Admittedly, the proportion has changed in recent years, but air arrivals are still the majority.

Don't know why you're expecting rational debate on this topic among any group in Australia. Grame Innes' address to the Press Club last month (http://goo.gl/71bI6) makes it clear that we don't exactly hold in high regard the sort of people most boat arrivals are (you know ... foreigners ... who are a bit ... dusky).

alisterfish:

06 Sep 2011 9:19:19am

It would be better to make these peoples home countries more palatable so they could stay. I want to know why the Aussie Cricket team is enjoying all the trappings of the Sri Lankan government at the moment, after their appalling treatment of the Tamils at the end of their dispute.[Did anyone else see Four Corners?]. Seems to be a lot of Tamil refugees coming our way via boat now.

Roba:

ied:

06 Sep 2011 10:53:20am

immigation has always been a thorny issue in australia,the predominantly anglo saxon majority has always kept an eye on immigration numbers and the racial mix as not to upset the historical balance.unfortunately both political parties are pandering to perceived fears that the balance is getting out of kilter.i suspect it is not the case but know one is this present political climate is willing to put their hand up and say so.hence we are left with a media and interest group driven immigation policy.the basic question for me is how many immigrants do we take per year,can the economy support the numbers and to be fair on all immigrants how many do we take from each region and ethnic groups.

Alan W:

06 Sep 2011 11:31:55am

It seems that most people are losing sight of the fact that these boat people, refugees or not, are illegal arrivals who have paid to be brought here illegally.

Australia has refugee policies compatible and compliant with the UN policy on refugee status and management. Australia also has immigration policies that determine who is eligible for permanent residency in Australia in whatever category that may be, economic, skills, family re-union etc.

Both of the above are administered without fear or favour why then are illegal arrivals by boat treated so much differently?

If you wish to bring your aged mother to this country you must prove to the satisfaction of the Dept. of Immigration and Citizenship that your mother will not be anything of a burden to this countries health or welfare systems, if you can't your mother doesn't live here, simple!

So what's the difference?

Find out where they come from, find out if they are genuine refugees and send them back to the original departure point or to an appropriate refugee camp where they should have been in the first place. Even genuine(?) refugees coming from Afghanistan have to pass established refugee camps before they can get to a people smuggler.

Campbell:

06 Sep 2011 12:03:55pm

We can use the same strategy to combat drug smuggling. Lock up all the users. Easy. Mental Health - lock up the mentally ill. Aboriginal misery - Lock up the aborigines - Thats right, we are already doing that.

Isn't it about time that those employed solely for the purpose of providing this nation with solutions to issues that suit our national ethos do their bloody job.

They have been given our trust, and everyone of them is letting us down. Badly.

Sceptic:

06 Sep 2011 12:36:54pm

I note the apparently informed comment by "Mawson" to the effect that it is difficult to withdraw from treaties and that therefore Australia (and other countries) cannot withdraw from the 1951 Convention.

While it may be generally unwise to withdraw from solemn commitments to international treaties the facts are that most treaties include a clause outlining procedures to abandon the contract. In this case see Article 40 of the '1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees' - "Denunciation", which outlines the provision for any state deciding to withdraw.

Obviously many comments on this topic are driven by specific perceptions and interests of the commentator, rather than any fundamental knowledge or research. It also appears that the Convention has been subject to a form of interpretation creep over time, through which important limitations on its agreed application are overlooked or suppressed.

possumoz:

06 Sep 2011 2:46:53pm

Whilst I am aware I may not be the complete paddock full of roos..I would have thought it bleeding obvious that the way to stop refugees is to end wars..seems to me in deciding what encourages refugees...wars, famine and poverty might need to form at least part of the equation. Also, if you think Australias got a problem with refugees..have a gander at Europe. Australians, as usual don't bother looking beyond their own fat little noses.